Related creditors voted down a government-funded deal for liquidators to investigate possible claims. About ten months later the liquidators sought court approval, and the Victorian Supreme Court granted it retrospectively, finding a reasonable basis and no prejudice to creditors.

A contractor garnisheed nearly $279,000 from a developer under a security of payment judgment while a stay application was pending in the ACT. The NSW Supreme Court froze the money for just days until a contested hearing, finding an arguable, though not strong, abuse case.

The WA Supreme Court halved a $182,000 fine for storing asbestos-affected building waste on rural land without planning approval. The breach was careless, not flagrant, and with an early plea, no priors and a clean-up, the company was resentenced to $90,000.

The High Court held that jurors who swore their separation oath on day one were still bound by it when sent home during deliberations, so there was no error or irregularity at the trial. The ordered retrial was set aside and the conviction restored.

Queensland’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal has not yet decided whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates unlawfully discriminated against Jayden Beale. What it has decided is more revealing. In June 2026, Member Wilson refused the State’s sixth attempt to throw the case out. The State’s argument was not merely that the mandates were justified. It was that a Christian’s own reading of Scripture is not, without more, a “religious belief” the law will protect. That claim deserves close attention. If accepted at trial, it would change how Queensland treats conscience, churches, and the individual believer. If rejected, it would reaffirm a principle Australian courts have stated for eighty years: the State does not get to write the catechism.

Parliament has just handed the Executive a new weapon: a “middle-tier” proscription regime that can ban organisations by regulation, criminalise ordinary proximity to those organisations, and turn immigration decisions into a “might”-based purge—all while quietly switching off procedural fairness at the front end. This isn’t a laser. It’s a net. And the net is designed to catch people who think they’re nowhere near “extremism”.

The introduction of the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 into the Australian Parliament marks a precipitous descent into legislative authoritarianism. Masquerading as a necessary shield against the scourge of hatred, this omnibus Bill is, in reality, a sword struck at the heart of Australia’s liberal democratic tradition. It represents a fundamental realignment of the relationship between the citizen and the state, substituting the rule of law for the rule of executive suspicion, and replacing the presumption of innocence with a presumption of guilt for those who dare to traverse the increasingly narrow corridors of permissible expression and association.

The image is AI imagining life under the Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026. Behind its feel-good promises of safety and harmony, this Bill’s vague definitions, sweeping powers, and harsh penalties threaten to shatter fundamental freedoms – from free speech and free association to due process and equality before the law. It stretches well beyond targeting neo-Nazis or violent extremists, casting a wide net that could easily ensnare ordinary citizens – activists, journalists, artists, clergy, even members of minority communities – who never imagined they’d be branded “extremists.” Below, we expose how this Bill’s ambiguous language, constitutional infirmities, unchecked executive powers, and dangerous breadth put every Australian’s civil liberties at risk.

ASF17 v Commonwealth of Australia [2024] HCA 19 (10 May 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Federal Court of Australia Facts:- The appellant, ASF17, is a citizen of Iran. He arrived in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen at the age of 27 in 2013. Except for a short period during which he held a bridging visa between 2013 and 2014, he has been held in immigration detention continuously since his arrival. While in immigration detention, ASF17 in 2015 made an application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa ("SHEV"). The application was refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection in 2017. An application for judicial review of the decision of the delegate was di

Miller v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 13 (17 April 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Facts:- Mr Miller is a Fijian national whose Resident Return (Subclass 155) visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Migration Act"). A delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") decided under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act not to revoke that original decision on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied in terms of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) that there was "another reason why the original decision should be revoked". ... Calculati

Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen [2024] HCA 11 (10 April 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. Facts:- The respondent is a citizen of the United States of America whose visa was mandatorily cancelled ("the cancellation decision") in 2019 pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") because the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs ("the Minister") was satisfied that the respondent did not pass the "character test" as defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Consequentially, the respondent made representations to the Minister seeking revocation of t

LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12 (10 April 2024) Intro:- This is an appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia Facts:- The appellant is a Vietnamese national. He arrived in Australia in 1997 and, in 2008, was granted a Class BS Subclass 801 (Spouse) visa. Between November 2011 and August 2017, he was convicted of various offences on three separate occasions, twice in the County Court of Victoria and once in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, including offences of conspiring to import or export a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug or plant, attempting to possess a marketable quantity of a border controlle